August 23, 2011

Mr. Weaver has long been at war with the GOP mainstream, and his candidates typically end up running against some element of the Republican base. That was his strategy in 2000 with John McCain, who won New Hampshire but lost in South Carolina after attacking fellow Republicans....

The trouble with the strategy is that while it draws huzzahs from the media, attacking Republicans rarely appeals to enough . . . Republicans. This year in particular it's hard to see much room for Mr. Huntsman running to the left of Mr. Romney. The GOP as "anti-science" was a main Democratic theme in the past decade but also isn't likely to move many Republicans now. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman thinks this will carve out ideological space to be the "moderate" choice as vice president, which on present course is his only chance of getting on the ticket.

The trouble with the strategy is that... it draws huzzahs from the media! The media lures Republicans into embracing the most liberal candidate, but they will turn on him as soon as he gets the nomination. That's what happened with John McCain, who, once nominated, wasn't liberal enough for liberals or conservative enough for conservatives. There's some idea that the moderates are left to throng to this liberalish Republican. (I just typo'd "Republicant" and before deleting the "t," considered, as an alternative, inserting an apostrophe.)

I don't know if I'm the typical moderate, but I am a moderate, and I specifically had a problem with McCain's lack of conservatism. This was written on October 8, 2008, the morning after a debate, the day I abandoned my "cruel neutrality" perspective on the election and decided to vote against McCain:

McCain offered no defense of his party, only assertions that he had tried to get [financial] regulations passed. So, there he was, embedded in failure. He didn't stand by the principles of conservatism...

Look at how McCain failed to promote conservatism. McCain brought up Ronald Reagan 3 times: once to say he opposed him about sending troops to Lebanon and the other 2 times to say it was wonderful the way he worked with the liberal Tip O'Neill.

McCain never presented the conservative alternative to Obama. He never even called himself a conservative last night. He was wandering all over that red carpet, microphone in hand, and I have the feeling, in retrospect, that he was truly bewildered, mouthing old phrases, trying to slip by. But one old phrase that was missing was "I'm a proud conservative." Remember when he used to say that?

So, speaking as a moderate, I'd like to say that I want the Republican candidate to define himself in conservative terms and defend that conservative vision. That doesn't mean I want everything that ordinarily gets packaged as "conservative." I don't. But I want someone who makes sense as the leader of the Republican Party, not a... maverick who's about looking like he doesn't buy into their ideology.

105 comments:

I agree that the Republican nominee should be at least somewhat a Republican.

My son the Marine tells me that most of his fellow servicemen are pretty conservative, but when discussions come around to who will be best President for the military, right now the 2 names mentioned most are Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton.

Odd how every candidate except for Romney is invariably described by the media types as a "long shot". But Huntsman, not so much. Go figure? Ann's analysis is spot on. The media love this guy's moderation and common sense and will continue to until he's nominated. Then Huntsman will magically morph into an extremist right-wing religious nut-job kook.

The only way someone today could be a principled Republican is by rejecting wholesale the prevailing current dogma of the party--a churlish worldview that 50 years ago would have defined one as a member of or sympathetic to the John Birch Society--or by leaving the party altogether.

By definition, any Republican today who does not condemn his or her party's present extremism is unprincipled...or a fanatic.

The only way someone today could be a principled Democrat is by rejecting wholesale the prevailing current dogma of the party--a churlish worldview that 50 years ago would have defined one as a member of or sympathetic to the Xommunist Party-- or by leaving the party altogether.

The only way someone today could be a principled Republican is by rejecting wholesale the prevailing current dogma of the party--a churlish worldview that 50 years ago would have defined one as a member of or sympathetic to the John Birch Society--or by leaving the party altogether.

Lots of Democrats wish that Republicans would capitulate whenever they demand it—as many Republicans were prone to do in the early 1960s.

But Gerry Ford (for whom some of today's Democrats now pretend to pine) actually voted against Medicare.

And Gerry never went near the Birch Society.

Besides—since Cook likes to complain that Democrats are scarcely different from Republicans, what would he demand of principled Democrats?

24 hours a day cable needs needs a horse race, controversy, punditry however sad, and the other "issues" for which they compete for viewership. Stirring up the electoral process probably works.But it has nothing to do with electoral support; only viewership.

And in fairness to the media, the blogosphere is worse--The blogosphere magnifies the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.

Huntsman is mush. And I don't believe VP candidates need to apply, they are chosen. Lastly, Huntsman wouldn't appeal to any particular voting block or deliver specific states that someone like Perry wouldn't easily win.

I've just closed my eyes again Climbed aboard the dream weaver train Driver take away my worries of today And leave tomorrow behind Ooh dream weaver I believe you can get me through the night Ooh dream weaver I believe we can reach the morning light

Fly me high through the starry skies Maybe to an astral plane Cross the highways of fantasy Help me to forget today's painOoh dream weaver I believe you can get me through the night Ooh dream weaver I believe we can reach the morning light

Though the dawn may be coming soon There still may be some time Fly me away to the bright side of the moon And meet me on the other side

Ooh dream weaver I believe you can get me through the night Ooh dream weaver I believe we can reach the morning light Dream weaver Dream weaver Dream weaver

Maybe another way to look at Ann's point is that, while most politicians seem to be opportunistic and self-centered, in most pols that self-centeredness is at least somewhat moderated by their need to be a team player in their party and to at least pretend to be animated by, and work for the furtherance of, certain core political principles (liberalism, conservatism, etc.), but a "maverick" like McCain doesn't even have that - he's basically a party of him and his guiding principle is to do or embrace whatever seems virtuous to one John McCain at any given moment. Sometimes I think he makes good choices, sometimes I think they are poor, more importantly, I really don't have a clue what he will do until he does it, and electing someone like that is inherently risky.

All that said, if Ann couldn't stomach McLame, and I don't blame her, she should have voted for Nader or someone other than the stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

I really don't think McCain's progress through the 2008 primaries was due to any huzzah's in the media. I think of it as the result of a random series of events an a race against uninspiring (Romney), disinterested (Thompson), goofy (Huckabee), or tactically misguided (Giuliani) candidates.

That cannot happen in 2012. Not because of Romney, but because of Bachmann. The strongly opinionated candidate will bring strongly opinionated voters to the polls. Huntsman has no chance running to the left of the left of the left of Bachmann.

"The only way someone today could be a principled Democrat is by rejecting wholesale the prevailing current dogma of the party--a churlish worldview that 50 years ago would have defined one as a member of or sympathetic to the Xommunist Party--"

Lame. The Democratic Party today doesn't even have a left wing, and overall they are as much minions of Wall Street as the Republicans, so they could appear to be communists only to...a John Bircher.

It's pretty sad when liberals embrace a policy that serves only to enrich the financial elite.

It's pretty sad when someone claims to be at the forefront of fighting for the planet's well-being, whilst consuming 20x the average family's annual power in one residence, then claiming it's all okay because he's rich and purchased carbon "offsets".

Has there ever been a more stark example of hypocrisy since Jim and Tammy?

You sound just like a 50's communist attacking liberals of their day. Please tell me what constitutes left wing in your mind.

My grandfather was a Party member and I have heard all your rhetoric before at family gatherings. You are making me nostaligic for my childhood. I even bet you have Party card not that you would admit to it on this forum.

Scott M--Jimmy yes; but I would submit that Tammy ended her life as a class act--as was said of Charles the first, nothing ever graced his life as his ending of it. (bad paraphrase--operating from a diminished memory)

And voting for the obviously inexperienced, extreme liberal in moderate drag because the Republican wasn't conservative enough makes as much sense as curing a headache with a .45ACP through the temple.

I agree that the Republican nominee should be at least somewhat a Republican.

That assumes that there is someone who defines Republican orthodoxy. The current Republican party is far to the right of the one that nominated H. W. Bush. It has become a truly radical and dangerous party. It is certainly no longer the party of the EPA creating Richard Nixon.

Maybe, like Zell Miller (and you all fall over yourselves when you recall Miller's speech at the RNC in 2004), Huntsman thinks the Republican Party has left him behind. And like me he is disturbed by the anti-science, anti-intellectual, false populist and anti-reality course the Republican Party has taken over the last couple decades, and that has accelerated precipitously since the election of Obama.

Not that I agree with Althouse. To imply that she will vote for the person who best represents their party, is a patently ridiculous position, and demonstrates that she has no coherent political philosphy.

This strategy probably makes more sense for someone in Huntsman's position than it did for McCain. The dumb thing about trying to raise the specter of the Religious Right taking over the GOP was that the only people who will fall for it are the same ones who've been falling for it every election cycle since 1980-- and McCain already had them. Huntsman, on the other hand, hasn't got much of anyone. Even the support of a dopey fringe is an improvement on the support he's got now.

"Coming from someone who proudly holds your moonbat far left views do you think that really means anything to even someone holding moderate conservative views?"

I just state the truth...I don't assume those I refer to will stop listening to the voices in their heads or the control impulses radiating from their microwave ovens to even notice I'm anything more than one more of the many phantom populating their waking or sleeping fever dreams.

From day one of his campaign Huntsman has been running to be the NY Times "conservative." Maybe he thinks that, after watching McCain, that's the way to get the nomination. Of course, Ann's right. The day he gets the nomination they'll turn on him.

McCain was a horrible candidate and the absolutely wrong man for the job had anyone other than Obama been his opponent. But Obama was his opponent. And Obama has done nothing in his life to justify the trust we have bestowed upon him. Anyone who voted for Obama was rationalizing their sanctimony, joining in with the cool people, and generally operating in a daze. Huntsman is a nonstarter.

Forget whether he's a Republican or merely psoriasis on the skin of the GOP elephant.

He's not articulated any reason, much less a compelling reason, as to why anyone should vote for him. He's a handsome man with grey hair and he's got a lot of money. It's been 6 or more weeks since he staged that photo op with the Statue of Liberty in the background and that's about all anybody has learned about him.

In the Iowa debates he said "I'm running on my resume". Well okay Bozo, what IS your resume. He's said about as much about his resume as Obama has said about his latest "jobs plan". It doesn't appear that there is much there there.

"And like me he is disturbed by the anti-science, anti-intellectual, false populist and anti-reality course the Republican Party has taken over the last couple decades"

Weird! Like me, most of the Tea Party are disturbed by the anti-science, anti-intellectual, false populist and anti-reality course the Democratic Party has taken over the last couple decades. And moreover, wants to take their anti-science, anti-intellectual, false populist and anti-reality approach and reform the nation into that image by mandating all kinds of anti-science, anti-intellectual, false populist and anti-reality policies.

Huntsman is a vanity candidate, and that anti-GOP approach is called Democrat.

Chase said...

My son the Marine tells me that most of his fellow servicemen are pretty conservative, but when discussions come around to who will be best President for the military, right now the 2 names mentioned most are Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton.

They really think the Hildabeast is pro-military?

She's the one who felt "uncomfortable" around military people in uniform in the White House.

DADvocate said...

There's a faction of Republicans that think they need to appear to be a better Democrat rather than just something better.

You voted and you voted wrong - for whatever reason popped into that pretty little head of yours - and, as you travel the country as one of the "happy few" (which you became, partially, by pretending you've been oppressed) look around at the results of that vote and know no rationalization, now, will absolve you.

I know - you'll just smile and go about your merry way, unconcerned with anyone but yourself, simply because you can.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Adali Stevenson may have been the last "intellectual" as a candidate--unitarian, brillian, t, I think supported Alger Hiss etc--the media darling--Ike wiped up the floor with him in two elections

I have heard it argued that Stevenson is the prototypical Democratic PSEUDO-Intellectual, a la AlGore. Stevenson acted and spoke with the, now “intellectual” style, lots of pauses and “aah’s” (q.v. Wm F. Buckley) IMPLYING thought. Actually Adlai was, supposedly, not a great or avid reader and no intellectual heavyweight, but the then and current Democrats like to THINK he was…and that this supposed intellectual firepower is the key to a successful Presidency. Call it the Harry Seldon Theory of Leadership/ psychohistory theory of government.

It would be well if we might remember why Ike was, IMO, a well prepared Presdident: He had to deal with egos such as Churchill, George VI, Stalin, deGaulle, Patton, Marshall, and MacAurther, and was able to keep them relatively in line. He established the Interstate Program--a truly shovel ready jobs program which has enriched the country. And he played golf--not as much as Mr Obama, but was criticized roundly for it. And he warned against a military industrial complex--Ike will continue to rise in the ranks of great presidents--but ultimately it was the political skills he developed in liberating Europe

"... Stevenson acted and spoke with the, now “intellectual” style, lots of pauses and “aah’s”..."

I took public speaking in college and a marketing class in grad school that required a lot of oral presentations and 'ahhs', 'uhhhs' and pauses counted against you as the message sent was one if unpreparedness, not thought.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) And he warned against a military industrial complex--Ike will continue to rise in the ranks of great presidents--but ultimately it was the political skills he developed in liberating Europe

Yeah, funny it was that MIC that won the Cold War, liberated Kuwayt, Iraq, and Afghanistan….the perpetual bane of the Paleo-cons/Paleo-Libertarians/Paleo-Left. All I can say is that it has done more for the US and the world than any amount of Federal Entitlement spending on “poverty”.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) I took public speaking in college and a marketing class in grad school that required a lot of oral presentations and 'ahhs', 'uhhhs' and pauses counted against you as the message sent was one if unpreparedness, not thought

Yeah, but to the Left they are signs you’re thinking, deep thoughts, and are searching for EXACTLY the right word…again Wm. F. Buckley, though admittedly not a man of the Left….he spoke “intellectual.”

It would be well if we might remember why Ike was, IMO, a well prepared Presdident: He had to deal with egos such as Churchill, George VI, Stalin, deGaulle, Patton, Marshall, and MacAurther, and was able to keep them relatively in line.

Ike kept MacArthur and Marshall in line?

Last I heard he was their subordinate.

And I can't agree about his being that good a President. He was far more to the Left than most people realize (creation of HEW, etc.) and made some very bad appointments (Earl Warren), largely out of misjudgment. He preferred secrecy to the point where the Lefties were able to stoke a lot of paranoia about the Establishment because of it.

I'll grant you he did a good job taking on segregation and was really the one who integrated the US military, but that doesn't make him that good.

edutcher--I dont think anyone could have kept MacArthur in line--And I may have overstated the case re George Marshall, who was smart enough to have put Ike in the supreme commander position--But at the end of the day, it was Ike who got the job done--we may disagree on Ike's abilities, but I still think he will be a near great president.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) I think Ike's message was that the MIC should not dominate the domestic political process

Which is, again, the bogey man of Paleo-Libertarians, Conservatives, Leftists. Which like “Fascism” is always descending upon America, but landing somewhere else…I’d say the threat is the Congressional, Social Security Administration, AARP axis…not the MIC.

And Ike worked for Marshall, and MacArthur and Ike squabbled over resources, but beyond that there was NO control one way or the other.

I agree Ike was a good/great CinC for Europe, having to put up with Churchill "down the street" and Patton and Monty squabbling like children. Was he a great "general" no, but like the porcupine, or Mick, he understood one big thing.

Adlai Stevenson was the ne plus ultra man of the left, as immortalized in his famous response, when told he had the vote of "every thinking American" - "Thanks, but I need a majority to win."

Intellectual snobbery, disdain for the plebs and an overweening belief in one's own greatness. Adlai and Little Black Jesus, brothers under the skin.

And speaking of intellectual snobbery - "He doesn't hide his belief in evolution and he likes Captain Beefheart." Since belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for the Chief Magistracy, I don't care whether Huntsmann believes in it, in creationism or in turtles all the way down. And I believe he likes Captain Beefheart as much as I believed John Francois Kerry when he said he found rap "fascinating." Beefheart is nothing but abstract nonsense that passes for "music" among pseudo-hipster fanboys who never got over the first time they heard "Joe's Garage."

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) You might as well applaud all that cancer has done "for humanity as opposed to any amount of spending on "medicine" and increased medical and scientific "knowledge

Kept Europe free, America free, from the bloodiest most murderous regime in Modern History…liberated Kuwayt, Iraq from a megalomaniacal mass murderer, liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. Tell me has the percentage of Americans in “poverty” fallen since 1964, even though we’ve spent far MORE money to fight “Poverty” than Communism?

edutcher--I dont think anyone could have kept MacArthur in line--And I may have overstated the case re George Marshall, who was smart enough to have put Ike in the supreme commander position--But at the end of the day, it was Ike who got the job done--we may disagree on Ike's abilities, but I still think he will be a near great president.

Nowadays some Liberals like him, but that's about it.

As for MacArthur, Marshall had sense enough to give him a free hand in the SWPA, even though they didn't get along, particularly after the Aussie High Command started making noises like Arthur Percival in early '42.

Marshall supported his strategic vision, including going for the Philippines when the conventional wisdom said Formosa, and gave him the OK to liberate the southern Philippines, even though they weren't in our immediate interests.

In some ways, I think Marshall, not Ike, would have been the better POTUS, although Ike had a more marketable personality.

I see that Cookie has yet accept the challenge and define what truly leftwing is. What's wrong Robert are you afraid that your definition of left is exactly what Lenin's was? Failure to answer will be seen as confirming the charge.

"You say you’re lookin’ for someoneNever weak but always strongTo protect you an’ defend youWhether you are right or wrongSomeone to open each and every doorBut it ain’t me, babeNo, no, no, it ain’t me, babeIt ain’t me you’re lookin’ for, babe"

The GOP as "anti-science" was a main Democratic theme in the past decade but also isn't likely to move many Republicans now.

Yeah. Most of the Repub. rednecks have decided years ago that science itself is a collectivist plot (plus it's real hard and taught by yankee nerds and interferes with NASCAR, Bud-drinking, kountry musick, etc.) So when a somewhat pro-science repub like Huntsman comes along he might pick up a few non-redneck GOP votes...the minority (tho Huntman's probably got a bullseye on his poster in klan bunkers of the South).

How does a conservative state like Utah elect a guy like Huntsman? Are they paying no attention at all?

I doubt that Huntsman is actually conservative. More likely is that he is a closet lefty. There are a lot of lefties who run as Republicans in conservative states because that is the only way to get elected in that state.

My guess is that Huntsman is a closet lefty who is focusing on damaging other possible GOP nominees. The sooner Huntsman is disavowed by the GOP, the better.

I think Ann voted for Obama and not for McCain because she in fact is liberal and not conservative. She describes herself as a moderate, yet was presented with a moderate republican in McCain and balked because hewasnt authentic enough.then voted for the far left candidate, who denied his entire past and pretended to be a revolutionary moderate. There was literally nothing authentic about Obama, yet althouse held it as a fault only for the republican candidate that he wasn't authentic enough.Being a moderate, why would she even want an authentic republican, since he wouldn't be especially moderate in his views.Buckley once said he always voted for the most conservative candidate in the race, and if you looked at Obama and McCain at the time. Who was the one who was more conservative?Fr all his poking his finger in republicans eyes, I would even argue that if you simply wanted authenticity that Obama didn't hold a candle to him. Because there is literally nothing authentic about the plastic man in the white house. What you say passed as authentic was simply the medias non questioning and non vetting of an obviously not ready for prime time intellectual clod who never really did anything his entire life of note. And for all his speaking prowess and people fainting at his every word, was there anything at all substantial in any of his words?You were had, althouse.